Hahn Walks a Political Tightrope on Secession

The goal was clear when Mayor James K. Hahn and San Fernando Valley secessionists opened negotiations last month on the terms of a referendum: to build consensus on a plan to break apart Los Angeles.

A month later, the most notable point of consensus is the lack of consensus.

Yet signs have emerged that City Hall and Valley separatists could reach agreement on at least the outlines of a separation pact to put before voters in November 2002.

Last week, city negotiators took a remarkable step forward by agreeing to submit written terms of separation that Los Angeles would accept if voters grant the Valley independence. After years of identifying a host of problems posed by secession, it’s the first time that City Hall will offer solutions--a begrudging contribution to the blueprint for dividing Los Angeles along Mulholland Drive.

City officials say their aim is to shape a ballot measure that would protect Los Angeles in case voters let the Valley secede.

“It would be irresponsible for us not to participate in this,” said Ellen Sandt, the coordinator of City Hall’s response to the secession drive.

Architects of the ballot measure face an immense job. They are trying to carve a Valley government out of a vast Los Angeles bureaucracy that must meet the most basic needs of 3.7 million people--water, electricity, trash pickup and emergency services, to name a few.

The willingness of city officials to craft a plan to dismantle their government is rich with irony. It’s the mayor who is leading the fight to keep Los Angeles together; Hahn formed a committee last week to raise $5 million for a full-blown campaign to kill secession.

But at the same time, Hahn says voters should decide whether secession is the answer to long-standing complaints that City Hall shortchanges the Valley.

So Hahn, whose political base includes the Valley, is helping to draft the secession plan. He attended the first round of negotiations with Valley VOTE, the group seeking the referendum. And his chief of staff, Tim McOsker, has represented Los Angeles at each subsequent round, alongside the City Council’s top aide, Ron Deaton.

It’s a tough balancing act for Hahn. The more success he has in getting a ballot measure that spares Los Angeles from harm, the tougher it will be to cast secession as a threat to the city’s well-being.

“He’s wearing two hats,” said Los Angeles County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky. “It may appear to some to be awkward, but there’s no choice. He has a legal obligation and a political obligation to negotiate.”

Secessionists Question City’s Motives

Secessionists suspect the city’s hidden agenda at the negotiating table is “to put the worst possible proposal on the ballot so that it will be defeated,” said Valley VOTE Chairman Richard Close.

Separatists suggest Hahn is trying to protect his political flank in the Valley by appearing cooperative in the referendum talks while campaigning to thwart secession.

“Not only is it inconsistent; it’s political suicide,” Close said. “Politically, he’s going to accomplish nothing.”

Hahn aides said the mayor’s objective in the negotiations is simply to safeguard the city’s interests.

“We’re here in good faith, and we’re trying to see where there’s common ground,” McOsker said. “We’re not thinking through campaign issues as we’re sitting at the table.”

City Hall and Valley VOTE don’t need to agree on anything; it’s up to the county’s Local Agency Formation Commission to draft the ballot measure. But LAFCO has urged City Hall and Valley VOTE to agree to as many terms of separation as possible so the panel can make them part of the referendum.

“We really much prefer if the two sides can come up with proposals, and then reach consensus” rather than LAFCO imposing terms by “fiat or edict,” commission counsel John Krattli told negotiators.

Neither side in the Valley secession talks has had high expectations for a comprehensive deal. And the first four rounds of bargaining have left every major question unanswered.

How much of the nearly $5 billion in taxes that Los Angeles collects each year should be diverted to the new city north of Mulholland Drive? How much “alimony” must the Valley city pay to Los Angeles? For how long?

Can Los Angeles be forced to provide services to the new Valley city under contract? How can Los Angeles be sure the Valley city’s mayor and council will agree to pay the full cost of services? Will Los Angeles employees face layoffs if the Valley decides to provide its own services?

Valley VOTE has brought to the table a raft of demands, the most important being an “equitable” share of assets: parks, libraries, the Van Nuys Airport, police helicopters and firetrucks. City Hall has responded that LAFCO cannot force Los Angeles to give up assets without compensation. But it has not ruled out some kind of asset transfer.

Overall, the emphasis of city negotiators has been to raise concerns. Among them is a state law that might give a Valley city up to five years to pay Los Angeles for the first year of services provided under contract. Deaton, the City Council’s chief legislative analyst, has warned repeatedly of devastating fiscal harm to Los Angeles.

“We’re going to be out three-quarters of a billion dollars,” he said.

Deaton’s remarks led to an outburst by Valley VOTE negotiator Richard Katz.

“We understand you’re concerned about the deficit; you’ve stated it 16 times,” Katz snapped at Deaton.

Valley negotiators promised the new city would pay Los Angeles monthly for services--and not spread payments over five years. But city officials questioned their authority to make commitments on behalf of a city that doesn’t yet exist.

“To say we’re not convinced would be an understatement,” Deaton said.

Negotiations Called Constructive by LAFCO

Despite the lack of agreement so far, LAFCO officials say the negotiations have been constructive in defining each side’s position. And the city’s plan to submit its own proposed ballot terms has dispelled concerns that City Hall would propose nothing and risk that whatever LAFCO imposes would be easy to defeat.

“You can take what’s in front of you, or you can gamble on what’s behind the curtain,” Yaroslavsky said. “It may be that what’s behind the curtain is much worse.”

Whatever City Hall and Valley VOTE agree to, both sides expect that LAFCO will have to make most of the decisions on what goes on the ballot.

“It’s a pretty big job the commission’s got on its hands,” said Yaroslavsky, a LAFCO board member who heads the subcommittee that will finalize terms for the ballot measure. “To be realistic, I don’t think we’re going to satisfy everybody.”